View Full Version : Belgae: Kelts, Germans or something else?
Hi,
I had an argue about wether Belgae where Kelts or Germans :book: . I tought it where Kelts wich spoke a Celtic language and shared some common stuff with Gauls, "Brittons" and Germans but were more like an "own kind" of people who had Celtic culture. The other ones said that Belgae were Germans and spoke German. So who's right? and what did they speak and how similar to Gauls, Germans and Brittons were they,...?
I know it doesn't has to do with EB but I figured that if there would be a place where people know about this stuff it would be here. :bow:
anyway, thx in advance.
~:cheers:
I think it was Ceasar who said they were germans...but you know how accurate he can be ~D
Most of the cultural evidence left by the Belgae was more Celtic related than Germanic especialy in Britain and Hibernia I believe. But I don't think there's a definite answer to that question.
My guess? They were probably a mix of both breeds probably with the prevalence of the Celtic stratus of the population, but they could also be Germans who adopted the Celtic language and culture after crossing the Rhine into previously celtic lands.
Or even like the Vizigoths did in the Iberian peninsula, a german elite ruling over a conquered people and adopting the native customs. Or even the exact opposite; A Celtic elite ruling over a german population who adopted it's lords culture.
Now, did that answer your question? ~;)
Judging by that they apparently spoke Gallic, and the artifacts left behind, they were ostensibly Celtic. If they were Germanic blooded people who adopted Celtic practice, they're still Celts. Celt is not a bloodline, it's a culture. So, it doesn't matter if they were descended from Germans (and not all of them would've been, plenty of Gauls and Brits had settled in the region too, likely had to do with trade), they were still 'Celts'. However, the danger is in lumping all Celts together. Celts were a varied group of multiple cultures, all part of a single 'super-culture' that covered most of Europe. However, they were invariably products of indigenous practices and invaders melding with Celtic practices either by conquest/assimilation, or due to the slow cultural eb of trade eventually converting their culture. Belgae I think it is safe to call Celts, but I would not call them Britons or Gauls. The eastern most were most likely descended from Germans, but still culturally Celtic. They may have maintained some Germanic practices or beliefs, but that doesn't make them German anymore than Helvetii writing in Greek characters made the Helvetii Hellenes.
Reverend Joe
09-19-2005, 23:41
Ranika- sorry if this takes a while to answer... but I thought that the germans were a part of the Celtic "superculture"... am I wrong or what?
Way off. Germanic culture is entirely its own. Germans and Celts mingled a lot, through both trade and war, of course. There was a kind of Germano-Celt/Celto-German culture that existed on the borders of Germanic and Celtic lands that we hope to represent in some fashion, but the fact of the situation was that Germans were a different people with entirely seperate customs, artwork, traditions, etc. When they descended into mainland Europe, Celtic culture had already dominated much of northern Europe, and the Germans were quite new by comparison. They certainly adopted a lot; they imported swords and then mimicked Celtic sword styles, chain armor, etc. However, a ton of people did that, and still weren't Celts. A true Celtic culture has a slew of beliefs, specific types of art, traditions, etc. It's very complicated, but it is safe to say that Germans are not Celts.
Reverend Joe
09-19-2005, 23:56
You are the god of history. You and the rest of EB.
:bow:
the_handsome_viking
09-20-2005, 03:44
Way off. Germanic culture is entirely its own. Germans and Celts mingled a lot, through both trade and war, of course. There was a kind of Germano-Celt/Celto-German culture that existed on the borders of Germanic and Celtic lands that we hope to represent in some fashion, but the fact of the situation was that Germans were a different people with entirely seperate customs, artwork, traditions, etc. When they descended into mainland Europe, Celtic culture had already dominated much of northern Europe, and the Germans were quite new by comparison. They certainly adopted a lot; they imported swords and then mimicked Celtic sword styles, chain armor, etc. However, a ton of people did that, and still weren't Celts. A true Celtic culture has a slew of beliefs, specific types of art, traditions, etc. It's very complicated, but it is safe to say that Germans are not Celts.
what would you say the major difference was in terms of weapons and warfare?
Well, that would vary depending on the group in question, really. The Celts were the first to use iron weapons, though, but I don't think they had any conflicts with the Germans when that was of importance.
I recall reading somewhere that all Germanic words connected to rulership have Celtic origins, suggesting that at one point Germans were ruled by a Celtic upper class.
I second Ranika here,but it is interesting that the Nervii - a extremly warlike belgic tribe always took pride in their germanic heritage.
About distinctions in warfare and weapons:
Mainland celts had usually better weapons due to long experience with ironwork.
Germanics on the other hand were more able to adopt new tactics and fought more as units unlike the celts with their "everybody for himself" tactic and so slowly took the upper hand in the numerous clashes between those two cultures during many years. They also were not routed so easily after unsuccesful charges, as they fought with more discipline and in denser formations(shieldwalls for example which Caesar described as phalanx).
As example loosing his shield in battle or returning alife with the chieftain fallen was such a shame for a germanic free man, that he lost his right to take part in tribal meetings, could not vote anymore at the Thengaz (similar to the viking Thing) and was regarded a coward. It was not uncommon for those men to took their own life by hanging.
Interesting is that germanic cavalry was regarded superior to celtic and normally came on top in conflicts between the two.
Celts on the other hand were more adept at building fortified oppida's unlike germanic tribes who rarely, if ever settled together in great masses.
Other aspects were celts were superior to germanics were medicine and farming for example.
As Ranika already said there are many similarities between the two people as trade, inter-marriages and warfare was normal for them.
About the languages - there are many words similar in both - again very normal for neighbouring people, but it is new and sounds unlike to me that every proto-germanic word for king, leader, chieftain or whatelse is of celtic heritage.
Celts fought as units, SaFe. That's why they had standard bearers (they would serve no purpose if everyone was in a free-for-all). Only lesser warriors 'fought for themselves' in any sense, and even they were obeying commands and organized into units based upon armament and age. Older Celts tended to fight in shieldwalls and tight supported formations, like the Helvetii, Arverni, and Remi tended to. Some Celtic cultures fought in very tight units on all levels (particularly Goidils, who had to due to the massive numbers of natives they put down in their formative years, Galatians, adopted from Hellenes likely, and the Belgae, who had similar problems that Goidils had and were accustomed to fighting disorganized enemies, so used tight small unit tactics). Tactics for Celts can't be based on 'all Celts fought like this'; there are too many Celts/demi-Celts, and of varied nature and origins that overall tactics aren't generally common. However, usually, at the smallest level, tribe/clan 'wars' (usually only a battle or two long, except in the cases of large confederations, which aren't really tribal war) were fought by warbands that were more or less just a small group of warriors, usually with
In terms of law, Celts rarely executed people (don't know about Germans; Safe?). They did sacrifice criminals convicted on festivals, and sometimes sacrificed prisoners, but execution for crime was rare; one was usually fined, or if they couldn't pay the fine, banished. If banished for murder, they could legally be killed by the offended family. Law was argued with a small group of elected local judges, presided by a more educated judge (a low 'druid', essentially) who would arbitrate. The only executions always had a religious nature to them (such as punishments for traitors, rapists, murder of children specifically, etc.; those who commited a blatantly religious offense).
Also, I've seen proto-Germanic, and it doesn't bear much resemblance to Celtic usually. A few things do, usually the names of deities and what not, but that should be expected from them spreading into Celtic regions.
@Ran
I've meant in comparison to germanic warfare, celtic warfare was not as organized- tacticwise.
Bad english - that's all:-(
Naturally celtic armies fought as units but except the mentioned tribes from Ranika not in such formations as germanics normally did.
About law - executions were not too common, cause the germanics had that nice little thing in german called "Blutrache" - blood revenge!
So a Thengaz with a voting system was needed to help spare bloodshed between families or clans.
Executions of criminals, rapists and female adulterers were more common.
Also religious based executions were not unheard of - as example a man was killed every year in spring for the goddess Austron(Ostara-the eastern one) for a good harvest. The believe was that the dead man would rise again after a few days to watch over the tribe and bring good harvest.
This was considered a free death and a honour - not a brutal execution.
B.t.w. Ostara stands for fertility, harvest and rebirth. Her totem animal was the rabbit. I know a christian holiday with a similar name...
You're talking about Easter, right?, Its named after a bastardization of Ostara, Eastara if I'm not mistaken.
thx for the replies guys!!!
You're talking about Easter, right?, Its named after a bastardization of Ostara, Eastara if I'm not mistaken.
Right and as a second important holiday: Germanics celebrated "Wintersonnenwende" at the 24th of December. They danced around a decorated tree and gave presents to each other.
Remember something?
As a sidenote this celebration often ended in a great party:-) with lots of met, ale and - if possible wine.
Right and as a second important holiday: Germanics celebrated "Wintersonnenwende" at the 24th of December. They danced around a decorated tree and gave presents to each other.
Remember something?
As a sidenote this celebration often ended in a great party:-) with lots of met, ale and - if possible wine.
Bah, too happy and stressfree to be any sort of pre-runner to Christmas.
maskoolin
09-20-2005, 18:41
I think it was Ceasar who said they were germans...but you know how accurate he can be
Caesar said once that the Belgae are Celts , another time he said that they are Germans who passed the river "Rhein" and repulsed the former celtic inhabitants of the area :book: ... so please ... built your own opinion ~:cheers:
Dux Corvanus
09-20-2005, 19:09
Right and as a second important holiday: Germanics celebrated "Wintersonnenwende" at the 24th of December. They danced around a decorated tree and gave presents to each other.
Remember something?
As a sidenote this celebration often ended in a great party:-) with lots of met, ale and - if possible wine.
Well, SaFe, it's not a particular merit of Germans to have discovered the winter solstice. ~;)
Many cultures around the world gave a religious meaning to solstices and equinoxes, meaning associated to the yearly seasonal cycle and the harvest timing, without having any direct contact among them.
But, yes, associating Christmas to winter solstice and Easter to spring equinox were two intelligent moves by primitive Christian Church in order to extend the new religion to pagan cultures. (In fact, if we are to believe the Bible descriptions of Jesus's birth circumstances, we'll find hard to believe there were shepherds abiding in the fields and keeping their flocks outside in a cold December night, even if it was in Palestine).
Teutobod II
09-21-2005, 12:27
Right and as a second important holiday: Germanics celebrated "Wintersonnenwende" at the 24th of December. They danced around a decorated tree and gave presents to each other.
Remember something?
As a sidenote this celebration often ended in a great party:-) with lots of met, ale and - if possible wine.
sorry but thats on the 21st...
Teutobod II
09-21-2005, 12:28
Right and as a second important holiday: Germanics celebrated "Wintersonnenwende" at the 24th of December. They danced around a decorated tree and gave presents to each other.
Remember something?
As a sidenote this celebration often ended in a great party:-) with lots of met, ale and - if possible wine.
sorry, but that is on the 21st...
Dux Corvanus
09-21-2005, 14:46
sorry, but that is on the 21st...
Well, Winter solstice marks the REAL arrival of Winter, but the real natural date does not always coincide with official date. This is because a natural year -a cycle around the sun- does not last exactly 365 days, but 365 days, 5 hours and 51 minutes. Gregorian chalendar adds a day every four years -except every 400 years- to avoid an excessive lag respect of the natural seasonal cycle. In fact, that was the reason for Gregorian reform, since the Julian chalendar had a lag of more than 11 days, which affected to the calculation of the seasonal changes -and hence the plant and harvest procedures, so vital then.
So, it was not rare to have Winter Solstice on December 24th by the date -in Middle Ages- when the official church calendar was adopted.
BTW, SaFe referred to the solstice, not to a precise date. Germans didn't use Julian calendar.
PSYCHO V
09-22-2005, 03:23
Some food for thought;
AHISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF CELTIC HISTORY
The Celts have suffered from agenda based revisionism since the first accounts of their existence were recorded. Their history has been written and re-written over centuries, swayed by the tumult of ethno-political events, movements and agendas,... only recently being clawed back from obscurity.
It began with the writers of the classical period but was given new impetus in the new dawning of European national identity.
When the last Breton army was defeated in 1488 by the French, the Bretons were forced to sign the Treaty of Union between Brittany and France. Frenchman Jean le Fevre was sponsored by his King to write ‘Les Fleurs et Antiquitez des Gaules, ou il est traits des Anciens Philosophes Gaulois applelez Druides’ (1532) in which he stated “we are all Celts now”, claiming that the Germanic Franks and Celtic Bretons were all of the one Celtic stock.
Elias Schedius claimed that Celts and Germans were the same people and that the Druids were the ancestors of all German peoples (1648, De Dis Germanis). The later Nazi Germans drew heavily on such texts to support their ethic theories on the Aryan race of blond hair/blue eyes.
Whilst Germans and French both claimed Celtic roots, the mood was very different in England.
“Because the English had difficulty with accrediting the Celts with a strong culture or any ‘civilised’ talents or capabilities. After all, as conquerors, like the Romans, it would be imprudent of them to attribute any such qualities to those that they had conquered or were in the process of conquering, as they were at the time with the savage ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Irish in Ireland.” - (History of the Druids, Dr Peter Berresford Ellis, 2002). They found other ways of dealing with the history of the Celts.
Thomas Smith claimed that the Druids and Celts were of Jewish / Semitic stock and that “Abraham was the patriarch of the Druids” (1644, Syntagama de Druidum moribus ac institutis). John Aubrey, married reports of the New World with his version of the Celts stating that they were “different nations of haughty barbarians and noble savages” (1649, Ancient Wiltshire). John Web, drawing on the works of Inigo Jones (1573-1652) claimed that the Celts had “no art, no sculpture, no science, language, culture, architecture or common religious belief” (1655, The Most Remarkable Antiquity of Great Britain). He claimed that Celtic culture actually belonged to the Anglo Saxons, who had also erected Stonehenge.
Dr Walter Charleston disagreed and claimed Celtic culture for the Vikings, that they had built Stonehenge, (1663, Chorea Gigantum). Aylett Sammes claimed that the Druids were Phoenician bards who had influenced the ‘Celts’ with their ancient religion and culture (1676, Britannia Antiqua Illustrata). Rev Henry Rowlands traced the Druidic origins from Noah, stating that the Druids were the same as the patriarchal figures of the Old Testament. He dwelt heavily on the accounts of Celtic sacrifice, stating that these were “evidences that the Druids were following Old Testament traditions”, (1723, Mona Antiqua Restaurata).
By 1746, the last Jacobite uprising had been suppressed in Scotland, Ireland had been subdued since 1691, there had been no uprising in Cornwall since 1549 and Wales had been pacified since Tudor times. Outwardly the Celtic world was now at peace with England and again the Celts received a new history.
By the mid 1700s, John Aubrey's sentiments were adopted enmasse. The catalyst was the philosophical writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau which gained prominence throughout Europe. A key component of that philosophy was the concept of the "Noble Savage"; that is, humanity is essentially good, a "noble savage" when in the "state of nature" and that good humanity is corrupted by civilisation / society. This fitted well and further cemented the depiction of the Celts as recorded by the Romans.
Poems by John Thomson (1700-174 , William Collins (1721-1759) and Thomas Gray (1716-1771) depicted the Druids / Celts as venerated nature-worshipping pacifists. William Stukeley is credited as the one who “brought the Druids both to Stonehenge and into modern folklore in a way that caught the fertile imaginations of subsequent writers” (Ellis) in his book (1740, Stonehenge, a temple restores to the British Druids).
By the mid 1700s the French were again having problems with the Bretons. French centralist policies were encroaching on Brittany’s autonomous status, guaranteed under the Acts of Union and several Breton leaders had been executed for attempting to reassert Breton independence. Simon Pelloutiers was sponsored by his King to write another work, claiming that “the religion of the Germanic Franks and the Celts was one and the same thing” (1740, Histoire des Gaulois)
In England, a ‘modern’ Druidic order, organised as a “friendly society with Masonic rituals” came into popularity. With the pious English having problems with some religious moral outrage about the re-emergence of a pagan priesthood as a group worthy of respect, the Druids received a Christian approval. William Cooke, rector of Oldbury, wrote a works arguing that the Druids were “so morally high minded that they were not ethically different from Christians”, (1754, An Enquiry into the Druidical and Patriarchal Religion)
In James MacPherson’s ‘History of Great Britain’ (1773), we see the Druids presented in the new romantic imagery of semi-deified ‘white wizards’. William Blake claimed that Britain was the original Holy Land and ‘Jerusalem’ was not far from ‘Primrose Hill’ He stated that Britons were directly descended from Abraham and that “the Druids of England had set out with missionary zeal in the mists of time to establish their sacred temples of Oak across the face of the world and create the one true religion” (Ellis). Blake claims that Christ was crucified to a sacred oak (1804, Jerusalem, the Emanation of Giant Albion).
Keeping in line with this move to mysticism, the Druidic order in England split in 1833. The new order called “The United Ancient Order of Druids” focussed more on the “pseud theosophical ideas and mystical aspects” of the ancient Druids, rather than the former society model. It was to this new group that a well-known Winston Churchill joined on the 15th of August 1908. At his inauguration, ”some of the participants were wearing false beards and looking more like applicants for a job as Santa Claus than any self respecting Druid” (Ellis). By 1918 there were five different sects of Druids vying to perform their own sacred rites in Britain alone.
“With the onset of the 1960s, Hippies and Alternative Religions regarded the Druids as fair game. The Druids were called upon as the prototypes of many ‘New Age’ ideas and credos. Sybyle Leek (1975, The complete Art to Witchcraft) claimed that she followed the “old religion very closely allied to Celtic witchcraft”. Yes, ‘Celtic witchcraft’ had suddenly arrived out of all the mishmash and hocus-pocus of modern Druidism” (Ellis). Gavin & Yvonne Frost (1978, A Witches guide to Life) stated, “We call our religion Celtic Witchcraft”. Ellis commented that this was “rooted in 16th & 17th century balderdash with a mind-blowing reinterpretation of history”
By the 1980s not only new age beliefs and witchcraft, but esoteric Christianity and even ‘corn circles’ were given a Celtic gloss. In the 1990s the likes of John Matthews conjured images of the Druids as Zen Masters of the ancient world (1991, The Celtic Shaman).
I think it’s worth finishing with a quote from Ellis:
Celtic and Druidic ‘truths’ of every description, from ‘arcane knowledge’, ‘karmic destiny’, ‘ the true path to enlightenment’ to ‘mystic awareness’ are solicited in the commercial deluge of New Age philosophies. The Druids and the Celts were there when our 17th and 18th century ancestors sought ‘Romanticism’ as a counter-balance to the ‘Age of Reason’ and industrialisation. It is not surprising that they are still being reinvented at this time because, in our sad and sorry contemporary world, people still want a quick fix on spirituality; because people, in the quest for truth and meaning in life, which seems the perennial human drive, prefer simple answers. It is easier to accept the cosy pictures of non-existent romantic / barbarian Celts and Druids rather than ponder the uncomfortable realities of these once proud, independent, sophisticated and advance peoples”. - (History of the Druids, Dr Peter Berresford Ellis, 2002)
PSYCHO V
09-22-2005, 03:36
In terms of law, Celts rarely executed people.They did sacrifice criminals convicted on festivals, and sometimes sacrificed prisoners, but execution for crime was rare; one was usually fined, or if they couldn't pay the fine, banished. If banished for murder, they could legally be killed by the offended family. Law was argued with a small group of elected local judges, presided by a more educated judge (a low 'druid', essentially) who would arbitrate. The only executions always had a religious nature to them (such as punishments for traitors, rapists, murder of children specifically, etc.; those who commited a blatantly religious offense)..
Yup, further to what Ran said.
The Celts had a strong sense of justice, right and wrong which they embodied in their justice system.
The Irish High King Ollamh Fodhla allegedly founded rule by legislature and drew up a system of law in 714BC. He Founded the great festival of Tara (Feis Temhrach) to be held every three years and at which laws were discussed and revised.
One of the most important functions of the Druids noticed by both Strabo and Caesar was that of judges in the Celtic law courts. Legal Druids could be a Solicitor called aignesa (to plead / argue one’s case), a Judge called breitheamh or Chief Magistrate called Aire Echta. Caesar mentions such magistrates such as Vergobret that was elected chief magistrate of the Aeduii in 52BC.
Both Strabo and Caesar state that Druids were entrusted with all legal decisions both in private and public cases. Strabo states that “the Druids are considered the most just of men”, but that all Judges had to cite a fasach (precedent / maxim) in making any decision to justify their decisions.
Caesar commented “their prestige as judges is immense, there is no appeal against their decisions”. If anyone refused the Druid’s decision, they were ostracised (dibert) from Celtic society and were to be “shunned by gods and man”. Interesting enough, we get our English word ‘boycott’ from the Irish when they instigated the ancient practice of dibert against Englishman Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott in 1880 for a famine induced by he and his countrymen.
*Applauds*
Edit-On a sidenote, as a Person extremely interested in ancient pagan faiths and beliefs I find that "Celtic witchcraft" stuff, EXTREMELY amusing.
Colovion
09-23-2005, 07:07
From what I gather, Belgae are Germanic tribes who lived in the stated areas and bred with Celts for so long they were essentially Celtic and Germanic. I'd class them in a similar category as the modern English what with being Germanic Jutes, Angles and Saxons which bred with the Celtish stock of the British Isles to create the English of today.
PSYCHO V
09-23-2005, 08:22
From what I gather, Belgae are Germanic tribes who lived in the stated areas and bred with Celts for so long they were essentially Celtic and Germanic. I'd class them in a similar category as the modern English what with being Germanic Jutes, Angles and Saxons which bred with the Celtish stock of the British Isles to create the English of today.
No, the Belgae ('furious ones'), are thought to have originated in central Germany around the rivers Tauber and Main and (as Ranika has already mentioned) were Celtic by Culture and Tongue. Scholars suspect an ancient connection to the Volcae of Bavaria and other areas in the south of Germany.
They were originally Proto-La Tene / La Tene 'A' peoples that embraced the warrior cults and seem to have sprung form the wanning power of the old Halsatt chiefoms. With the emergence of the Germani (a distantly related Indo-European group) over the indigenious Urnfield and Halstatt remnants to the north, they began to inter-marry with these Germanics as they increasingly came into contact with them during the early 2nd C BC.
my2bob
*Applauds*
Edit-On a sidenote, as a Person extremely interested in ancient pagan faiths and beliefs I find that "Celtic witchcraft" stuff, EXTREMELY amusing.
I find them highly aggravating. I dated a Wiccan once. I won't do it again.
PSYCHO V got the Belgae nail on the head and quite simply put.
Well they can be aggrivating, especially when they insist beyond all reason on things that just simply arent historically true...
"The ancient Celtic amazon race worshiped a divine feminine goddess and tapped into her divine glory to cast wonderous magical spells!!!...oh and there was a god sorta-almost-knda but he wasnt as important."
Crap like that makes me want to pull my hair out, Psycho V I applaud your efforts to unveil the truth about these diverse and intriguing people who have had their culture butchered over the past millenias.
The funny/irritating thing about Celtic 'goddesses' is that they were, mostly, not overly central to Celtic religion, with the exception of a few very popular ones, specifically Epona, for her fertility and horse attributes. However, the deities of war, farming, trade, nature, etc., are generally male, as are deities of creation. Most female deities are actually minor local deities that patron things like rivers, lakes, and ponds (from which stem things like 'The Lady of the Lake'). For example, in ancient Gaelic religion, the main deity was Cromm Cruach (Dagda), a male deity, and to Gauls not under the Arverni, the main deities included the deity Cernunnos, a horned male deity who controlled nature, wealth, etc., and the Arverni replaced him with Sucellos, the Celtic hammer-god who was supposed to have created the world (which is actually where Dagda comes from, as Sucellos is one of the oldest and most common Celtic gods; the Arverni just built him up greatly in local worship to remove influence from the 'druids' in Aulercia, who controlled worship of Cernunnos). There were certainly important female deities to Celts, but the way that goddesses are built up by these silly modern wannabes is entirely ignorant of what Celtic religion was like. In modern so-called 'Celtic' paganism, the presence of male deities is extremely downplayed, with a focus on some 'goddess' with little if any basis in deities Celts actually believed. Also a bit funny, if they really were like pagan Celts, Celtic religion would probably not be so popular with the people they tend to be; Celtic religion is not 'relaxed' or nice toward others.
Well the thing about these idiots is that they claim that and are convinced that, there was at one time some sort of pan-celtic civilization stretching across all of ancient Europe and that this culture was pieced together by some sort of universal "goddess" religion shared by all. If my facts don't fail me, it was invented in the late 1800s by some Soi-dissant male feminist who's name escapes me at the moment. Then re-invented in the 70s by a bunch of angry feminists.
Of course, there is the fact that their supposed "Celtic spell rituals" are more Egyptian and Germanic then anything else and not even remotely Celtic in origin that is also annoying.
Of course, there is the fact that their supposed "Celtic spell rituals" are more Egyptian and Germanic then anything else and not even remotely Celtic in origin that is also annoying.
Germanic ?!
The main germanic deities where wodan (odin), Ziu (tyr) and donar (thor).
Wodan, Ziu and Donar are all male deities...
I know that, I'm talking about their supposed "Celtic spell rituals" they use not the gods, if I'm not mistaken alot of their supposed "Celtic magic" is in fact Germanic in origin, I know a large portion of its Egyptian as well.
Basically anything but Celtic.
Edit-Tyr/Tiwaz/Ziu whatever you want to call him, kicks major ass.
PSYCHO V
09-27-2005, 03:11
Well the thing about these idiots is that they claim that and are convinced that, there was at one time some sort of pan-celtic civilization stretching across all of ancient Europe and that this culture was pieced together by some sort of universal "goddess" religion shared by all. If my facts don't fail me, it was invented in the late 1800s by some Soi-dissant male feminist who's name escapes me at the moment. Then re-invented in the 70s by a bunch of angry feminists.
Of course, there is the fact that their supposed "Celtic spell rituals" are more Egyptian and Germanic then anything else and not even remotely Celtic in origin that is also annoying.
Yup, the mother-goddess theory..only a millenia too late
For example, in ancient Gaelic religion, the main deity was Cromm Cruach (Dagda),
Whoa whoa whoa. Crom Cruach IS the Dagda?
Ranika, you gotta clear this up for me. I'm losing sleep.
Steppe Merc
10-02-2005, 03:42
The funny/irritating thing about Celtic 'goddesses' is that they were, mostly, not overly central to Celtic religion, with the exception of a few very popular ones, specifically Epona, for her fertility and horse attributes.
Epona's awesome. Deffinetly the coolest animal in a video game, ever.
Link!
He come to town
Come to SHAVE!
The princess Zelda
Gannon took her away
And now the children don't play
But they will, when Link save the day
HALLELUJIAH
Whoa whoa whoa. Crom Cruach IS the Dagda?
Sorry I missed this. Yes. Dagda is only a title, after all. Crom Cruach is 'the good god', because he is skilled in all things; he's a skilled warrior, poet, singer, musician, dancer, builder, smith, athlete, commander, and orator. He's also, in the moral sense, good. Obeys laws, defends his people, his family, and home, pays debts should they arise and is hospitable and dutiful to those around and near him. As the only god who is truly good at everything, he is the good god (Dagda). His only possible competition for that name would be Lugh (though Lugh has failings), but Lugh (and if one wishes to be technical, all other 'gods' in Irish lore) is more of a demigod/deified hero (only the Dagda is beyond decay, death, and time completely; all other gods in the physical world are subject to harm and age; even the Dagda's 'parents' are more or less just personified concepts of creation).
I knew that once I'd shone the Celt-symbol, you'd show up.
Thanks for clearing that up. How long has it been since it's been determined that these two figures are one and the same?
I knew that once I'd shone the Celt-symbol, you'd show up.
Thanks for clearing that up. How long has it been since it's been determined that these two figures are one and the same?
Quite some time, actually; however, arguments have persisted for a long time that they're seperate. The main problem with conclusive proofs that the two are the same is that too much still needs translated (and much of the earlier proofs are actually in a mix of Vulgar Latin and old and middle Irish, recounting Irish myth; even earlier are in early Irish and late Goidilic {before the seperate forms of the languages really come about}, making them troublesome for even well educated scholars). Also, there is the nature of Irish mythical figures getting 'dual portrayal'; a personified 'earthly' figure (using the actual name Crom Cruach in this case), and the more ethereal, spiritual figure (that being his title of 'Dagda', since it exemplifies his spiritual nature as a good deity).
Vulgar Latin? In Irish texts? I assume that this after Christianity had come to the Isle?
Of course; there aren't Irish texts (with the vague exception of 'ogham', if one wants to be so liberal as to call that 'texts') before Christianity. However, the Irish didn't write in Latin. However, Irish books were exported all over Europe (one should bare in mind, until about 850 AD, Ireland produced substantially more books, both copies and original texts, than any region in Europe except the east Roman Empire), and versions of them sometimes appear written in Latin or Vulgar Latin in western Europe (specifically in Britain, in Wales).
Ah, much more clear. I met an elderly gentleman (a professor of modern languages) the other day; he came into my workplace. He bantered on about things Gaelic and Gallic (Gahlic?), since he insisted on referring to Scots Gaelic as such, keeping "Gaelic" as a term reserved for Irish. He also pronounced "Celtic" SEL-tik. I did a lot of cringing throughout our debate.
More to the point, he made references to an Irish word that shares an etymology with the Latin word from which the English "cell" draws its meaning; it was simply a small chamber. I believe he said it pronounced "Kella". He then went on to explain that Italian, Spanish, French and other romance language use a different form of the word, since the pronunciation of the letter "c" was different. This, he said, was a logical progression from the change in Latin pronunciation, which shifted towards "sella" throughout time. The Irish word, however, retained its "hard c" sound, suggesting (although he was quite adamant on it) that the word had arrived in Hibernia long before a time that would make sense.
I thought he was just talking out of his ass, but I thought to ask you. Is there such a word (if you recall), and do you know much of its etymology?
Ah, much more clear. I met an elderly gentleman (a professor of modern languages) the other day; he came into my workplace. He bantered on about things Gaelic and Gallic (Gahlic?), since he insisted on referring to Scots Gaelic as such, keeping "Gaelic" as a term reserved for Irish. He also pronounced "Celtic" SEL-tik. I did a lot of cringing throughout our debate.
More to the point, he made references to an Irish word that shares an etymology with the Latin word from which the English "cell" draws its meaning; it was simply a small chamber. I believe he said it pronounced "Kella". He then went on to explain that Italian, Spanish, French and other romance language use a different form of the word, since the pronunciation of the letter "c" was different. This, he said, was a logical progression from the change in Latin pronunciation, which shifted towards "sella" throughout time. The Irish word, however, retained its "hard c" sound, suggesting (although he was quite adamant on it) that the word had arrived in Hibernia long before a time that would make sense.
I thought he was just talking out of his ass, but I thought to ask you. Is there such a word (if you recall), and do you know much of its etymology?
Gallic is the language of Gaul (as in, Gaulish); it's not that closely related to the Gaelic languages (which are descended from the Goidilic-Galaecian language more heavily, with Gallic and Brythonic loan words in its earlier forms, and in modern forms has much English loaned into it).
Depends on dialect (this 'cell' thing); in my own dialect, the closest word would probably be 'kiraesún', but I think is more like 'cill' or 'kill'. It should be noted, in most Celtic languages, 'c' is always pronounced as a K except in special circumstances (though modern versions sometimes lax this rule, hence the 'most'). Ergo, in early versions of Irish, regardless of where or when the word arrived, if it was spelled with a 'c', it would invariably be pronounced as a 'k'. There simply wasn't the saturation of foreign languages necessary to introduce major language shifts (compared to the saturation of English, which has changed pronunciation and similar rules in varying amounts depending on the region).
Gallic is the language of Gaul (as in, Gaulish); it's not that closely related to the Gaelic languages (which are descended from the Goidilic-Galaecian language more heavily, with Gallic and Brythonic loan words in its earlier forms, and in modern forms has much English loaned into it).
I know...I became irritated when he insisted on using it. It's closer to the Scots Gaelic pronunciation of the term, which is, I assume, why he used it.
Depends on dialect (this 'cell' thing); in my own dialect, the closest word would probably be 'kiraesún', but I think is more like 'cill' or 'kill'. It should be noted, in most Celtic languages, 'c' is always pronounced as a K except in special circumstances (though modern versions sometimes lax this rule, hence the 'most'). Ergo, in early versions of Irish, regardless of where or when the word arrived, if it was spelled with a 'c', it would invariably be pronounced as a 'k'. There simply wasn't the saturation of foreign languages necessary to introduce major language shifts (compared to the saturation of English, which has changed pronunciation and similar rules in varying amounts depending on the region).
"Kiraesùn" sounds a little off..I'll look into it, I guess.
I was referring more to the idea that a non-vulgar Latin word could have been imported wholesale into Irish.
By the way, is there a journal I could subscribe to keep me up-to-date?
you guys know too much...your the type of guy that eliminates all bullshit in thsi world..
hollywood's deathsquad might be on it's way as we speak...
you guys know too much...your the type of guy that eliminates all bullshit in thsi world..
hollywood's deathsquad might be on it's way as we speak...
Don't worry, the History Channel and National Geographic relief forces have intercepted them:charge: :charge:
all my years of hollywood-education seem so futile...
Taffy_is_a_Taff
10-02-2005, 21:38
Neon: relax.
Every proffessor I've known in Celtic language departments pronounces Gaelic like Gallic when referring to Scottish Gaelic but pronounces it like gay-lic when referring to Irish.
Don't worry, he probably knew what he was talking about and was not referring to Gallic (as in the language(s) of the Gauls).
Cast aside the cringe.
~D
Ranika: surely the Irish did write things in Latin as well as Irish? yes, no?
Every proffessor I've known in Celtic language departments pronounces Gaelic like Gallic when referring to Scottish Gaelic but pronounces it like gay-lic when referring to Irish.
But why?
Taffy_is_a_Taff
10-02-2005, 23:14
I don't know, they just do.
The only Gaelic I know is from the page so I don't know if Gàidhlig is pronounced closer to Gallic and Gaeilge is pronounced closer to gay-lic.
If this is the case then I think we can understand where they are coming from.
If not then I haven't a clue, maybe just for easy differentiation.
anonymous_joe
10-02-2005, 23:26
I thought it was Gaidhlig in Scotland?
Taffy_is_a_Taff
10-02-2005, 23:47
Gàidhlig is the Scottish Gaelic word for Gaelic.
There's no accent, actually.
Gaidhlic is pronounced, in Scots Gaelic, closer to the word "Gallic", but it would ignore that subtleties and accents of the language if one was to say "Gallic" and refer to it. Besides, we don't say in English that a man was speaking Deutsch or Polski; we say that he was speaking German or Polish.
Ranika: surely the Irish did write things in Latin as well as Irish? yes, no?
Sometimes, but rarely. This is largely excused in the dark ages by two things; one, Patrick's 'Confessions' includes a note that his Latin is atrocious, and he never required Irish ordinates (priests, nuns, monks, and others he ordained) to learn it. As such, it was never part of the main liturgical language of the Irish until the middle ages, when Ireland was brought in closer union with Rome. That's the second excuse; Ireland was isolated, linguistically, from much of the world. Irish correspondances with the papacy went through Britain (much of which was reconverted to Christianity by Gaelic-speaking missionaries, and used both Gaelic and Latin in religious writing); not directly from Ireland to Rome (in fact, even when crusades were preached in Ireland, the suggestion to preach them came from an English bishop, not the Pope, though the Pope did agree that crusades should be preached there). The last time the Papacy had ever contacted Ireland until the high middle ages was during the missions of St. Palladius in Ireland, leaving several hundred years of dead space liturigically. In that time, Latin became the standard language of the church of Rome (before it was a combination of Greek, Latin, and various other languages), so Latin wasn't really 'required' when the Irish became Christians, and when official contacts with Rome were established, the Irish had long since been using Gaelic as the main language of religious service (this actually continued well into the renaissance, but religious writings began to be done in Latin, rather than Irish). The dark age Irish Christians actually wrote more in Greek, than Latin, because one of the main consumers of Irish books of poetry and stories (as well as philosophy, perhaps because Irish philosophy was, by this point, combinations of ancient Celtic personal belief mixed with Greek philosophies like stoicism) was the east Roman Empire, and they mainly filtered around Greece.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
10-03-2005, 21:01
Ranika: cheers.
NeonGod: there you go, it makes perfect sense if the Scots is closer to "Gallic" in pronunciation.I don't know about the accent thing, I just copied and pasted from something else.
If you really oject to the use of Gaelic for Scottish Gaelic then why not start a campaign to have people refer to it as Erse again? ~D
I suppose it depends if you consider it to be essentially the same language or not. If you personally believe it is the same language then I can see why it may grate but if you consider it one of three seperate yet very similar languages then it should be no big deal, you're not bothered about Manx Gaelic generally being called Manx? No? good. The thing is that the three Gaelics are generally viewed as three different but very close languages so you'd have to alter the mindset of a LOT of people.
It's like with Welsh stuff being referred to as Cymric, it's not exactly Cymraeg but it's a lot better than "Welsh".
If you really oject to the use of Gaelic for Scottish Gaelic then why not start a campaign to have people refer to it as Erse again? ~D
I don't. I object to it being called "Gallic". It makes no bloody sense.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
10-04-2005, 17:29
ok, it's spelt Gaelic for both languages when referred to in English.
There is a difference in pronunciation.
There is a reason for this difference.
The word Gaelic does not have to be pronounced GayLick.
It can also be pronounced Galic. This does not make it one and the same as Gallic, just like bear and bare or pier and peer do not mean the same things. Admittedly it may be easier if they were spelt differently but they aren't so you're going to have to live with it until your frustration wears off.
That may be a while. It's Gaelic because it's what the Gaels speak, and that's all there is to it.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
10-05-2005, 03:37
stiff upper lip and all that.
I have a feeling it will indeed be a long time.
~:grouphug:
ok, it's spelt Gaelic for both languages when referred to in English.
There is a difference in pronunciation.
There is a reason for this difference.
The word Gaelic does not have to be pronounced GayLick.
It can also be pronounced Galic. This does not make it one and the same as Gallic, just like bear and bare or pier and peer do not mean the same things. Admittedly it may be easier if they were spelt differently but they aren't so you're going to have to live with it until your frustration wears off.
I've said before, and will repeat; the general distinction when speaking casually is that the Irish language, in English, is just called Irish (not Gaelic like many seem to presume). Rather, the Gaelic language of the Scots is called Gaelic, in casual speech, in English. In proper speech and distinction in English, Irish and Scottish Gaelic are pronounced differently (as is Manx Gaelic), with 'gay-lick' as the Irish version, 'gahl-ick' as Scots, . In the actual languages, all of them pronounce the name of their language differently (such as 'Gal-eegh' in some Irish dialects, compared to the Manx 'Gailk' or 'Ghaelg'), though all of them translate literally to Gaelic.
For the curious about Manx, the last native speaker sadly died in 1974, though the language still survives, as it was, at least, well recorded enough that one can learn and possess fluency in it. Despite modern misconception, little Norwegian influence remains in the language as direct loanwords (only about 50 words appear to be directly Norwegian in origin). Rather, pronunciations and grammar is more affected by the old Norse language; however, Manx is clearly a Gaelic language (most experts agree that Norwegian as any sort of 'dominant' language died out in the 11th century, with any major portions of the population speaking it disappearing by the 15th). Manx is more heavily influenced by English than Norse, though some Norse loanwords include 'stiur', from the Norse 'styri', meaning 'helm'. In the middle ages, though, the Gaelic-speaking Manx were divided into northern and southern Manx, the north being closer related linguistically to the Scots, and the south to the Irish (due to their relations and dealings). Camden's Britannia (1695) gives a fair look at their language and culture (culturally Gaelic, in terms of clothing and mannerisms, but not without Norse influences in art, linguistically speaking their own language, as well as English among the gentry, and Irish as a trade language {though the last bit may not have been from Britannia, and I may be mixing up the source}).
Taffy_is_a_Taff
10-06-2005, 20:52
Ranika:
You may be interested to know that a Gaelic speaking Canadian I used to know claims to have met an old Manx immigrant who spoke the language after 1974.
However, I do not know whether he was a first language Manx speaker or not (which is why the guy who died in 1974 is the last native Manx speaker: it was his first language). I understand that some younger people learned Manx as a second language before all the native speakers died so it's not quite like Cornish in that respect.
Ranika:
You may be interested to know that a Gaelic speaking Canadian I used to know claims to have met an old Manx immigrant who spoke the language after 1974.
However, I do not know whether he was a first language Manx speaker or not (which is why the guy who died in 1974 is the last native Manx speaker: it was his first language). I understand that some younger people learned Manx as a second language before all the native speakers died so it's not quite like Cornish in that respect.
It's unlikely, but I suppose possible; however, no known living individual speaks Manx as their first language, though I know of plenty (myself included) who can speak it as a second or third language (or beyond). It's just that it's not the first language of any known living individual.
you really ahve abnormal knownledge of this time-period...where the hell did you get the sources?
Taffy_is_a_Taff
10-06-2005, 21:31
Ranika, I know, I just thought you may be interested.
anonymous_joe
10-06-2005, 22:25
Isn't Ranika a historian? One of many/a few involved with the EB project?
you really ahve abnormal knownledge of this time-period...where the hell did you get the sources?He does this for a living.
that explains a lot....
i'm interested, what is teh daily job of a Historian like yourself (ranika).
a plummer fixes drainings, a salesmen sells stuff...but what is your daily task?
(really, really no sarcasm, i'm interested)
that explains a lot....
i'm interested, what is teh daily job of a Historian like yourself (ranika).
a plummer fixes drainings, a salesmen sells stuff...but what is your daily task?
(really, really no sarcasm, i'm interested)
Are you serious?
He can be a professor, a researcher or a student. More often all of them at the same time. :book:
Sometimes an academic can be exclusively a researcher, but that isn't very common anymore, as most universities make us teach also.
yeah, I'm serious..i cna be serious some times..
PSYCHO V
10-07-2005, 13:48
that explains a lot....
i'm interested, what is teh daily job of a Historian like yourself (ranika).
a plummer fixes drainings, a salesmen sells stuff...but what is your daily task?
(really, really no sarcasm, i'm interested)
Well, amongst other things Ran's work involves translating very very old Irish manuscripts and other associated Medieval texts.
Most of my work revolves around translating. I don't teach, and I work for private individuals usually, though sometimes universities might pick me up for a few things they need a little extra help with getting done quickly. The Catholic Church also has paid me for translating things before (a ton of old church records and the like are in early to middle Irish), for the same reason as a university (not having enough people on hand to do it immediately). I don't do much else other than translate. I've gone on digs before, and I've assisted with things like that, but that's more because of friends and associates who do that for a living. I'd considered going into teaching, but I feel I'd be either too strict, or too lenient, depending on my disposition on any given day.
Your job rules.
My job is a constant headache and overly stressful with strict deadlines. It can be fun and interesting, and enlightening, but it can also cause quite severe irritation. It requires a lot of patience.
My job is a constant headache and overly stressful with strict deadlines. It can be fun and interesting, and enlightening, but it can also cause quite severe irritation. It requires a lot of patience.
I sell kilts and British food all day. I'll trade ya.
you sell kilts?
bloody tourists...
Ranika,
What Celtic langauges are you familliar except Irish,Gaelic,Manx..?!
Can you understand Brythonic languages or even accient Gaulish?!
Ranika,
What Celtic langauges are you familliar except Irish,Gaelic,Manx..?!
Can you understand Brythonic languages or even accient Gaulish?!
The language of Gauls is essentially dead. However, we do know a lot of words of it, and there has been work to reconstruct it. A common error is assuming the language Gallic or Gaulish is anywhere close to Gaelic languages. They are not that closely related; they come from two different branches. However, Gallic is not that close to Brythonic languages either. Again, they share some words and grammar, but, in truth, they come from two seperate sub-families. Bare in mind over how wide an area Celts persisted, and for how long. Inevitably, a huge amount of languages, regional dialects, trade cants, etc., had to have developed. I've worked before with reconstruction efforts on Gallic, which can be very confusing, and it's extremely slow. The same kind of thing has gone on with the Cumbrian language, amid others; taking what we know, weighing it against the language, trying to find appropriate cognates and so on. It's an enormous headache. However, at this point, I do believe my grasp of Gallic would be sufficient to at least learn more if any fluent speaker of it still existed (that is, one can be capable enough in Gallic that they COULD possess fluency if a native existed to teach it).
Also, I speak several other languages with fluency, Cymraeg most often, but I also have a grasp of Bretonic and Cornish (though my Bretonic isn't much good outside of speech; funny, considering it bares a fair resemblance to Cornish, but I'm easily confused by it in writing). I have at least a basic grasp of all living Celtic languages, but the Gaelic languages are definitely my best; Irish was my first language, and I studied the Gaelic language and etymology the longest. I can actually speak middle and earlier forms of Irish, a decent amount of middle Scot-Gaelic and Manx, and I can speak enough early and old Irish and late Gaelic that in such a society I could function and easily learn more. That is my foremost job though, I'm a linguist. I do possess schooling in history, but I started out in, specifically Celtic, linguistics, and most of my experience is in Gaelic etymological linguistics.
anonymous_joe
10-11-2005, 19:55
Cool.
Birka Viking
10-11-2005, 19:56
Lol
anonymous_joe
10-11-2005, 20:00
Hey, I'd love to be able to speak modern Irish, let alone old and middle.
Irish was my first language
Ranika how do you think about the future of Irish in Ireland?!
The number of speakers of Irish is declining I heard.
(Please correct me if I talk bullshit;-) )
Taliferno
10-11-2005, 20:49
The number of people speaking Irish as a first language is declining.
The number speaking it as a second language is increasing.
Taliferno is correct overall, but it's more based upon where in Ireland. In western Ireland on the coasts, the Gaeltacht are growing, but diminishing elsewhere (including in western non-coastal Gaeltacht). However, both through the Irish Republic's programs and personal interest, there is a very quickly growing group who speak it as a second language. In the republic, the number of speakers of Irish overall has greatly increased, and there are many foreigners who can speak Irish. Overall, I think the future of the language is quite bright, as it is increasingly associated with both national and cultural identity; regardless of its presence as a first or second language, it will remain in use for quite some time, I'm sure.
In any event, it is far better off than it was just a handful of decades ago.
Mouzafphaerre
10-12-2005, 04:27
Taliferno is correct overall, but it's more based upon where in Ireland. In western Ireland on the coasts, the Gaeltacht are growing, but diminishing elsewhere (including in western non-coastal Gaeltacht). However, both through the Irish Republic's programs and personal interest, there is a very quickly growing group who speak it as a second language. In the republic, the number of speakers of Irish overall has greatly increased, and there are many foreigners who can speak Irish. Overall, I think the future of the language is quite bright, as it is increasingly associated with both national and cultural identity; regardless of its presence as a first or second language, it will remain in use for quite some time, I'm sure.
In any event, it is far better off than it was just a handful of decades ago.
.
Nice to know it. ~:) I just hate to see a language die. ~:(
.
If only Scots Gaelic had comparable support.
anonymous_joe
10-12-2005, 23:15
Ya never know. Who'd have thought Welsh or Finnish would bounce back?
Ya never know. Who'd have thought Welsh or Finnish would bounce back?
I wasn't aware that Suomi was in decline.
Birka Viking
10-13-2005, 00:44
Yes it's true suomi is in decline
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.